To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Greta wrote: October 11th, 2020, 4:49 am The respiratory drive certainly is a drive, TP. Other drives: to eat, to drink, to have sex, to compete, to be comfortable, to explore and to be entertained.

Um, how did drives relate to utilitarianism? Not criticising, just asking.
The thread got derailed long ago. It no longer has anything to do with utilitarianism. Not that it was ever very focused on utilitarianism.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Terrapin Station wrote: October 11th, 2020, 9:28 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 11th, 2020, 7:30 am

Like you say, "An individual could desire anything imaginable". However, one cannot "really need" everything that is imaginable. That's why needs are intrinsic and desires are choices.
Needs are simply conditions that are necessary to achieve something one wants to achieve. That doesn't imply that you can actually achieve any and everything you want to. But nevertheless, needs are simply conditions necessary for a goal or desire or preference one wants to achieve. So, for example, if you want to fly under your own power, unaided by any devices, simply by flapping your arms, you'd need to have a particular anatomical make-up, a particular sort of physiology. Those would be conditions necessary to achieve unaided flight by simply flapping your arms. You're not going to have the required anatomy simply by desiring it, but nevertheless, that's what you'd need to achieve unaided flight.

People often construe "real needs" as what's necessary to remain living, to flourish, etc. But those are only needs if one desires to remain living and flourish (in those particular ways). Otherwise one has no such needs. Needs hinge on wants. They're the conditions necessary to achieve something.
Right. That's another usage of the word "need". But the usage I'm trying to indicate by attaching the adjective "real" as in "real need" or "really need", is an intrinsic general need, such as the need for food, as opposed to a mere "want" or "desire", such as a chocolate eclair.

In mediation, one of the goals is to get to what the two parties actually need, which can both be satisfied, even though neither gets everything that they want.

In your example of the person choosing not to live, it reminds us of Michael Gazzaniga's comment about the power of human beliefs:
Michael Gazzaniga wrote: "we humans have cognition and beliefs of all kinds, and the possession of a belief trumps all the automatic biological process and hardware, honed by evolution, that got us to this place. Possession of a belief, though a false one, drove Othello to kill his beloved wife, and Sidney Carton to declare, as he voluntarily took his friend’s place at the guillotine, that it was a far, far better thing he did than he had ever done."

Gazzaniga, Michael S.. Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain (pp. 2-3). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.


A belief may be false. A person may believe they need one thing when they really need something else.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?

Post by Sy Borg »

Terrapin Station wrote: October 11th, 2020, 9:30 am
Greta wrote: October 11th, 2020, 4:49 am The respiratory drive certainly is a drive, TP. Other drives: to eat, to drink, to have sex, to compete, to be comfortable, to explore and to be entertained.

Um, how did drives relate to utilitarianism? Not criticising, just asking.
So would you say that every biological fact is a drive? Is bleeding out if you're cut in certain ways a drive? It's a biological fact that you'll bleed out if you're cut in certain ways.
No, that is a reflex response. There's probably is a grey area between reflexes and drives, but bleeding would not be an example of that, but the drive to breathe would be. One soon finds the drive to breathe when one can't but breathing is also obviously largely reflexive.

Does this relate to utilitarianism or are you just seeing where the chat leads?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 11th, 2020, 2:37 pm Right. That's another usage of the word "need". But the usage I'm trying to indicate by attaching the adjective "real" as in "real need" or "really need", is an intrinsic general need, such as the need for food, as opposed to a mere "want" or "desire", such as a chocolate eclair.
lol--there's no other sense.

Let's say that everyone extant wants to die of starvation. Regardless of this, you want to claim that there's a "real need" for food.

How would food be a "real need" in that case?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Greta wrote: October 11th, 2020, 7:31 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: October 11th, 2020, 9:30 am

So would you say that every biological fact is a drive? Is bleeding out if you're cut in certain ways a drive? It's a biological fact that you'll bleed out if you're cut in certain ways.
No, that is a reflex response. There's probably is a grey area between reflexes and drives, but bleeding would not be an example of that, but the drive to breathe would be. One soon finds the drive to breathe when one can't but breathing is also obviously largely reflexive.

Does this relate to utilitarianism or are you just seeing where the chat leads?
Re your latter question, it has to do with utilitarianism because utilitarianism was being framed as at least partially hinging on biological drives.

So if you don't want to breathe--you want to die of suffocation, and you have a reflex to breathe as you're trying to die of suffocation, is breathing still a drive?
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Terrapin Station wrote: October 12th, 2020, 8:36 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 11th, 2020, 2:37 pm Right. That's another usage of the word "need". But the usage I'm trying to indicate by attaching the adjective "real" as in "real need" or "really need", is an intrinsic general need, such as the need for food, as opposed to a mere "want" or "desire", such as a chocolate eclair.
lol--there's no other sense.

Let's say that everyone extant wants to die of starvation. Regardless of this, you want to claim that there's a "real need" for food.

How would food be a "real need" in that case?
The real need for food is not a subjective opinion, but an objective observation. Observe the person deprived of food. Note that their body deteriorates. Note that they cease functioning. This happens whether the person chooses to die or has a keen desire to live. It is not a matter of wants or desires. It is a matter of what a living organism requires to continue. Food is a real need of every biological organism.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?

Post by Sy Borg »

Terrapin Station wrote: October 12th, 2020, 8:39 am
Greta wrote: October 11th, 2020, 7:31 pm
No, that is a reflex response. There's probably is a grey area between reflexes and drives, but bleeding would not be an example of that, but the drive to breathe would be. One soon finds the drive to breathe when one can't but breathing is also obviously largely reflexive.

Does this relate to utilitarianism or are you just seeing where the chat leads?
Re your latter question, it has to do with utilitarianism because utilitarianism was being framed as at least partially hinging on biological drives.

So if you don't want to breathe--you want to die of suffocation, and you have a reflex to breathe as you're trying to die of suffocation, is breathing still a drive?
As I suggested above, breathing is special, being both a reflex and a drive. To parse this example from bleeding, one can breathe in an appetitive way, eg. "Ahhhh, how about that fresh country air!". Bleeding does not have that same volitional, or appetitive, aspect.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 12th, 2020, 1:56 pm The real need for food is not a subjective opinion, but an objective observation. Observe the person deprived of food. Note that their body deteriorates. Note that they cease functioning.
Right. And what of that? How do we get from those facts to "Food is a need" versus "Food is not a need."

The person deprived of food has their body deteriorate. So deprivation of food is a need to have a body deteriorate (from food deprivation), right? And ingesting food is a need to not have a body deteriorate. Right?

So we have two options: bodies deteriorating and bodies not deteriorating. There are opposing needs for each possibility there. How does one requirement, for one possibility, amount to a "real need" and the other requirement, for the contradictory possibility, does not?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Greta wrote: October 12th, 2020, 7:00 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: October 12th, 2020, 8:39 am

Re your latter question, it has to do with utilitarianism because utilitarianism was being framed as at least partially hinging on biological drives.

So if you don't want to breathe--you want to die of suffocation, and you have a reflex to breathe as you're trying to die of suffocation, is breathing still a drive?
As I suggested above, breathing is special, being both a reflex and a drive. To parse this example from bleeding, one can breathe in an appetitive way, eg. "Ahhhh, how about that fresh country air!". Bleeding does not have that same volitional, or appetitive, aspect.
Wait, you're saying that someone couldn't have a disposition where they'd go, "Ahh, how about that bleeding"?
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?

Post by Sy Borg »

Terrapin Station wrote: October 12th, 2020, 7:11 pm
Greta wrote: October 12th, 2020, 7:00 pm
As I suggested above, breathing is special, being both a reflex and a drive. To parse this example from bleeding, one can breathe in an appetitive way, eg. "Ahhhh, how about that fresh country air!". Bleeding does not have that same volitional, or appetitive, aspect.
Wait, you're saying that someone couldn't have a disposition where they'd go, "Ahh, how about that bleeding"?
Sure, that sentiment would describe a primary motivation of many American movies.

You cannot just go to, say, a graveyard, and just bleed (no, don't go there!). You have to be wounded.

Not the same.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Terrapin Station wrote: October 12th, 2020, 7:10 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 12th, 2020, 1:56 pm The real need for food is not a subjective opinion, but an objective observation. Observe the person deprived of food. Note that their body deteriorates. Note that they cease functioning.
Right. And what of that? How do we get from those facts to "Food is a need" versus "Food is not a need."

The person deprived of food has their body deteriorate. So deprivation of food is a need to have a body deteriorate (from food deprivation), right? And ingesting food is a need to not have a body deteriorate. Right?

So we have two options: bodies deteriorating and bodies not deteriorating. There are opposing needs for each possibility there. How does one requirement, for one possibility, amount to a "real need" and the other requirement, for the contradictory possibility, does not?
Life is good. The rest is common sense.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Greta wrote: October 12th, 2020, 7:22 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: October 12th, 2020, 7:11 pm

Wait, you're saying that someone couldn't have a disposition where they'd go, "Ahh, how about that bleeding"?
Sure, that sentiment would describe a primary motivation of many American movies.

You cannot just go to, say, a graveyard, and just bleed (no, don't go there!). You have to be wounded.

Not the same.
So if craving the biological fact (or the "reflex" as you say) counts as having an "appetitive" disposition towards it, and that's what makes something a drive, then any biological fact can be associated with or NOT associated with that craving, and thus could or could not be a drive, and it's going to depend on what an individual craves.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 12th, 2020, 8:27 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: October 12th, 2020, 7:10 pm
Right. And what of that? How do we get from those facts to "Food is a need" versus "Food is not a need."

The person deprived of food has their body deteriorate. So deprivation of food is a need to have a body deteriorate (from food deprivation), right? And ingesting food is a need to not have a body deteriorate. Right?

So we have two options: bodies deteriorating and bodies not deteriorating. There are opposing needs for each possibility there. How does one requirement, for one possibility, amount to a "real need" and the other requirement, for the contradictory possibility, does not?
Life is good. The rest is common sense.
If you're going to claim that "life is good" is a fact that somehow obtains independently of anyone thinking that, you'd need to explain how it obtains.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Terrapin Station wrote: October 13th, 2020, 8:22 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 12th, 2020, 8:27 pm

Life is good. The rest is common sense.
If you're going to claim that "life is good" is a fact that somehow obtains independently of anyone thinking that, you'd need to explain how it obtains.
Well, if life is not good, then everything else is irrelevant. The problem with subjectivity is that it is impossible to settle any disputes. There must be some piece of common ground.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 13th, 2020, 1:39 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: October 13th, 2020, 8:22 am

If you're going to claim that "life is good" is a fact that somehow obtains independently of anyone thinking that, you'd need to explain how it obtains.
Well, if life is not good, then everything else is irrelevant. The problem with subjectivity is that it is impossible to settle any disputes. There must be some piece of common ground.
But there's a problem with claiming objectivity when it's not the case for something.

Maybe some things we simply can't settle aside from trying to let people do their own thing unhindered as much as possible.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021